[ubuntu-uk] 10.04: 64-bit or 32-bit install?

Glen Mehn glen.mehn at oba.co.uk
Sat Jul 31 15:09:03 BST 2010


  On 31/07/10 13:32, David wrote:
> I suspect that this is a bit of an FAQ (albeit one with constantly-changing
> answers..), apologies if so. I have done some web searching on 64-bit issues,
> but there's a lot of (also constantly-changing) information to read through..
>
Short answer (from my perspective): If you're handy enough to make this 
list, you'll be fine. If you were asking for a computer for your nan, 
I'd suggest 32 bit. There are a few niggles. More below.

[SNIP]
> Nvidia drivers
>
Fine
> Firefox (plus a variety of add-ons, any potential issues there?)
>
Fine
> Flash (in Firefox, particularly BBC iPlayer, 4OD, etc, which are
> must-haves! Adobe's withdrawal of Flash-64 sounds like a warning..)
>
All works fine-- if you use the Ubuntu packages. They've sorted the 
32/64 bit issue (by including the required 32-bit libs.
> Java plug-in in Firefox
>
Fine (comes in 64 bit)
> Thunderbird (again, any potential issues with extensions?)
>
None that I know of, though I'd seriously suggest finding a backport of 
TB 3.1 (indexing issues) In general, OSS == fine
> OpenOffice, GnuCash, Gimp
>
> a local LAMP (P=PHP) set-up, although to be honest I tend to do very
> little web dev at home these days, mainly at work instead.
>
>
> If I need to install 32-bit apps in a 64-bit OS, is this a painful
> process? Any particularly convoluted set-up or reliability issues that I
> need to be aware of?
>
The only niggle I've had is with Adobe AIR and some of the apps-- 
essentially, they end up with an unresolved dependency. The solution (in 
this case) was to use the binary (NOT .deb) version of the package, then 
tweetdeck et all don't demand to be uninstalled due to dependencies.

The only thing will be the 32 bit libs you'll need for "other" 
packages-- or to recompile them, which typically isn't that big of a 
deal (if it's OSS). Friendly package maintainers and their mailing lists 
will probably help you if you can't sort it....

So, I'd say that 98% of the time it all "just works"... then, 
occasionally there's a niggle, which is less than you'd get with OSX or 
whatever... but seems really annoying 'cos you can't immediately sort it 
out.
> If I could also ask a couple of related questions:
>
> What's the general view on the size of the swap partition these days? Is
> 2x RAM still the best policy?
I am not 100% sure of this, but I have heard loads of people say, 
basically, that unless you have *very* specific requirements, more than 
2GB of swap (even with 4GB RAM) is overkill. That's what I've got, and 
it seems to be fine. YMMV, of course.
> ext3 v ext4? I've heard various grumbles about ext4 being slower (I
> think it was something to do with rewriting files during software
> updates in particular? - I've forgotten the exact details), and it also
> still seems a bit 'new' ..or am I just worrying too much?
>
Go with EXT4. Faster, better journalling, etc. Of course, you will pay, 
but unless you have *very* specific requirements, go with what works.

Alternatively, I've had really good with XFS as well, which is fast, 
stable, etc.

Best of luck!

Glen

-- 
Glen Mehn
glen.mehn at oba.co.uk
skype: glenmehn | blog: http://glen.mehn.net/mba
UK: +44(0)7942 675 755 | US: +1 415 704 4737




More information about the ubuntu-uk mailing list